Forum:Anonymous user
I'm very, very tired of dealing with this user. He doesn’t read our messages, for whichever reason, and keeps contributing in complete disregard of our very simple guidelines, and every grammar rule in the book. IPs change regularly, so obviously it’s useless to block him for any time longer than two weeks. But in the short period of time he is unblocked, he manages to add some articles. My question is, do those articles get deleted because they are fruit of block-dodging, or should we judge each by its own merit? ― Thailog 16:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC) *Two more articles resulting from a block dodge. Suggestions? ― Thailog 18:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC) :Double edge. On the one hand, the articles are like you said - relatively poorly written and (in some cases) fail to conform to the MoS. On the other, (from what I've seen) articles are being made for things that need them but didn't have them. :So here's a question: did this person edit or otherwise modify existing articles to a lower level of quality? - NakedSamurai 19:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC) So here's a question: did this person edit or otherwise modify existing articles to a lower level of quality? Not right now — he used to, though. The only problem is that he ignores, purposely or not, every single message we send him. And even though he's been blocked before, he always comes back as if nothing happened... How can we help him improve himself if we can't get through to him? Therefore, it will ultimately be up to us to clean up his mess, i.e., rewriting his poor articles equals doing the whole thing from scratch. Hence my question: are they worth keeping if we will end up doing it anew? ― Thailog 19:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC) :Hmm. Is a bad article better than no article at all? :Better question: Is it more work to delete the article now than to delete/rewrite it later when we (and hopefully other new, cooperative members) get to it? - NakedSamurai 23:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Hmm. Is a bad article better than no article at all? Personally, I think so. If I go to a Wikia and the first articles I stumble upon are written like this, I more likely to leave than to keep reading more or helping out. Is it more work to delete the article now than to delete/rewrite it later Not really. Deleting is just a matter of a couple clicks — if is that what you meant... ― Thailog 02:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC) :It's kind of what I meant, but I'm not going to explain because what I'm about to say will make it redundant. :Anyway, the statement "'''Personally', I think so. If I go to a Wikia and the first articles I stumble upon are written like this, I more likely to leave than to keep reading more or helping out'' convinced me. I agree: poorly written articles can leave a bad impression. It's something I hadn't thought about, but (to me) it makes perfect sense). :So, um, just continue deleting those articles? Or is there action of the permanent variety that can be taken? - NakedSamurai 15:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC) ::I don't think there's anything permanent to be done. That's why I brought this up: personally, I think these articles should go — I want to know how you feel about it. ― Thailog 15:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC) *Actually my original question was do those articles get deleted because they are fruit of block-dodging, or should we judge each by its own merit?. ― Thailog 20:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC) :::I don't want to start penalizing people for having a poor grasp of English. This article, for example (Moon), is poorly written, however, it has all the hallmarks of a person new to the English language. The information is valid, however, the sentence structure, grammar and syntax are all a bit off, the double negative and split infinitive seem to indicate a though pattern based in a romance language. Rather than scolding this person, and deleting his or her contributions, perhaps we should just edit it for proper English. This way, we might teach the user something about the language, and we won't alienate him or her. --BoneGnawer 21:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC) ::::I couldn't agree more, but this is a very particular situation. The user does not read our messages. How can we communicate with him through the articles? Your approach seems rather productive IF he would read our warnings and advice. We don't have guarantees he will read and learn from the improvements we make into his work... which means we'd be doing what I'm speaking against: clean up his mess and reword everything he does. It's double work for us with no guarantees of improvement on his behalf... ― Thailog 21:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)